On November 4, 2025, Workers’ Party Secretary-General and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh appeared before Justice Steven Chong to appeal his February 2025 conviction for lying under oath to a parliamentary committee. The day-long hearing revealed significant judicial skepticism toward key prosecution arguments, particularly regarding the evidentiary value of Singh’s inaction and the relevance of certain corroborative evidence. While judgment has been reserved, the appeal hearing exposed critical weaknesses in the original conviction that could potentially lead to an acquittal or partial success for Singh.
Part I: Case Background and Original Proceedings
The Genesis: The Raeesah Khan Controversy
This case originates from false statements made by then-Workers’ Party MP Raeesah Khan in Parliament. Khan had fabricated details in a speech, including claims about accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station where officers allegedly mishandled the case. When these falsehoods came to light, a Committee of Privileges (COP) was convened to investigate not only Khan’s lies but also the actions of WP leadership in response to her initial untruth.
The Original Trial (February 2025)
Following a 13-day trial, Singh was convicted on two charges of lying under oath during his testimony to the COP. The court found that Singh had:
- Made false statements about his conversation with Khan in August 2021 regarding her parliamentary lie
- Falsely testified about what he told Khan on October 3, 2021, before she was scheduled to speak in Parliament the following day
Singh was sentenced to the maximum penalty allowed under law: $7,000 per charge, totaling $14,000 in fines.
The Stakes
This conviction carries profound implications:
- Personal: Singh’s reputation and political career
- Political: The credibility and future of the Workers’ Party
- Constitutional: Standards of accountability for parliamentary testimony
- Precedential: How courts assess conflicting testimonies in political contexts
Part II: The Criminal Charges Analyzed
Charge 1: The August 2021 “Take to the Grave” Meeting
The Prosecution’s Case: During an August 2021 meeting, when Khan admitted her parliamentary speech contained falsehoods, Singh allegedly:
- Told Khan to take the lie “to the grave”
- Said “I won’t judge you” – indicating he would not hold her accountable for maintaining the lie
- Effectively gave her permission to continue deceiving Parliament
Singh later testified to the COP that this meeting went differently – that he told Khan she would eventually need to clarify and come clean about the lie.
The Legal Issue: Did Singh lie to the COP about what he told Khan in August 2021? The charge rests on whether the phrase “take it to the grave” was actually used and whether “I won’t judge you” constituted implicit approval for continued dishonesty.
Charge 2: The October 3, 2021 Pre-Parliament Conversation
The Prosecution’s Case: On October 3, 2021, the evening before Khan was scheduled to speak in Parliament, Singh spoke with her. He later testified to the COP that during this conversation, he had “wanted to convey” to Khan that she must come clean about her lie if the issue arose during the next day’s parliamentary session.
The prosecution argues this testimony was false – that Singh never conveyed this message and in fact tacitly approved Khan’s continued deception.
The Legal Issue: The charge’s specific wording – “wanted to convey” – becomes legally significant. This language focuses on Singh’s intention rather than whether the message was successfully communicated or understood. The defence would later leverage this distinction heavily in their appeal arguments.
Critical Context: On October 4, 2021, Khan not only failed to clarify her lie but doubled down on it in Parliament. Singh, who was present, said nothing. On October 5, he took no corrective action. This inaction became a centerpiece of the prosecution’s case.
Part III: Detailed Timeline of Events
August 2021: The Disputed Conversation
The Crossroads Meeting
Following Khan’s initial lie in Parliament, she met with Singh to discuss the situation. This meeting would become the subject of Charge 1, with fundamentally different accounts:
Raeesah Khan’s Version:
- Singh told her to take the lie “to the grave”
- He said “I won’t judge you”
- She understood this as permission to maintain the falsehood
- She felt supported in continuing the deception
Pritam Singh’s Version:
- He told Khan she would need to clarify the lie eventually
- “I won’t judge you” meant he wouldn’t judge her for coming clean
- He was buying time to handle the situation appropriately
- His intention was always for truth to emerge
October 2021: The Critical Week
October 3, 2021 (Sunday Evening): Singh contacted Khan before her scheduled parliamentary appearance the next day. According to Singh’s later testimony, he “wanted to convey” that she should come clean if the issue arose. The prosecution disputes that any such message was conveyed or intended.
October 4, 2021 (Monday – The Parliamentary Session): This day became pivotal for multiple reasons:
- Khan appeared in Parliament
- The topic of her original lie came up in discussion
- Rather than clarifying, she repeated and reinforced her falsehood
- Singh was present in Parliament but remained silent
- He did not stand up to clarify or correct the record
- He did not signal to Khan to stop or reconsider
- This inaction would become crucial evidence
October 5, 2021 (Tuesday – The Day After):
- Singh took no corrective action
- He did not demand Khan make an immediate clarification
- He did not report the matter to parliamentary authorities
- This continued inaction further bolstered prosecution arguments
October 7, 2021 (Thursday): Khan sent an email to WP leaders. While the specific contents aren’t detailed in the hearing notes, the prosecution would later cite this as corroborative evidence. The email presumably contained information consistent with Khan’s version of events rather than Singh’s.
October 11, 2021 (Monday): A meeting occurred involving former WP Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang. Low’s testimony about this meeting remained “unchallenged” – meaning the defence did not successfully rebut his account. This evidence supported the prosecution’s narrative.
October 12, 2021 (Tuesday): Singh spoke with WP cadre members Loh Pei Ying and Nathan. Ms. Loh’s subsequent testimony about what Singh told them during this conversation became significant corroborative evidence for the prosecution. Her account apparently contradicted Singh’s claim that he had always intended for Khan to come clean.
November 29, 2021: The Disciplinary Panel
The Workers’ Party convened internal disciplinary proceedings against Khan. A witness identified as Ms. Lim provided an account of these proceedings that the prosecution would cite as evidence. The panel’s handling of the matter – and what was included or omitted from its report – became a point of contention during the appeal hearing.
Part IV: The Appeal Hearing – Hour by Hour
Opening Phase: Setting the Strategic Framework
Defence Strategy Unveiled: Senior Counsel Andre Jumabhoy opened by establishing the defence’s core argument: the original trial judge had “ignored crucial pieces of evidence” that would have supported Singh’s account. This wasn’t merely challenging the judge’s interpretation – it was alleging a more fundamental failure in evidence assessment.
Jumabhoy’s approach centered on three pillars:
- Consistency Argument: Singh’s position remained uniform throughout – Khan needed to eventually clarify her lie
- Linguistic Analysis: Alternative meanings exist for the disputed phrases, particularly “I won’t judge you”
- Evidentiary Hierarchy: Corroborating witnesses (Loh, Nathan) have inherent limitations in value
The Two Key Phrases: Justice Chong identified early that the entire appeal would hinge on the interpretation of just two phrases:
- “Take it to the grave”
- “I won’t judge you”
Everything else – the corroborative evidence, the witness testimony, the circumstantial facts – served only to illuminate what Singh actually said and meant during those critical conversations.
Mid-Hearing: The Prosecution’s Evidence Structure
15:30 – The Five Pillars of Charge 2
Deputy Attorney-General Goh Yihan presented his case with methodical precision. He provided five key pieces of corroborative evidence specifically addressing Charge 2 (the October 3, 2021 conversation):
1. Ms. Lim’s Account of the Disciplinary Panel (November 29, 2021) What Ms. Lim testified about the internal WP proceedings apparently contradicted Singh’s claim that he had consistently urged Khan to come clean. The specific nature of her testimony wasn’t detailed in the hearing notes, but it carried sufficient weight for the prosecution to lead with it.
2. Ms. Loh’s Evidence About October 12, 2021 When Singh spoke to Loh and Nathan on October 12 – eight days after Khan doubled down in Parliament – what he told them evidently didn’t align with his later testimony that he had “wanted to convey” that Khan should come clean. This temporal proximity to the events made Loh’s testimony particularly damaging.
3. Khan’s October 7 Email Four days after the disputed October 3 conversation, Khan sent an email to WP leaders. The content presumably reflected her understanding of what Singh had conveyed (or failed to convey) on October 3.
4. Singh’s Inaction on October 4-5 This became the most contested piece of evidence. The prosecution argued that Singh’s silence when Khan doubled down on October 4, and his continued inaction on October 5, demonstrated that he had never intended for her to come clean. If he had genuinely “wanted to convey” that message on October 3, surely he would have reacted when she did the opposite?
5. Low Thia Khiang’s Unchallenged Evidence from October 11 The former WP chief’s testimony about the October 11 meeting remained uncontested by the defence. While the specific content isn’t detailed, it apparently supported the prosecution’s timeline and narrative.
Justice Chong’s Immediate Reaction: “I see you like the number five,” the judge observed.
“Yes, I do, just because there is so much evidence,” DAG Goh replied.
This exchange, though light in tone, underscored a serious point: the prosecution wasn’t relying on a single witness or piece of evidence but rather a web of corroborative testimony.
15:16 – Critical Judicial Intervention: “I Am Not a Trial Judge”
The Turning Point:
As DAG Goh repeatedly referenced trial transcripts and witness testimony, Justice Chong delivered what may prove to be the hearing’s most significant intervention:
“It may not be entirely helpful to refer to all these transcripts as though you were inviting me to make a finding. I am not a trial judge.”
The Legal Significance:
This statement revealed Justice Chong’s understanding of his appellate role. An appeal court doesn’t re-hear evidence or make fresh findings of fact. Instead, it reviews whether the trial judge’s findings were:
- Supported by the evidence
- Legally sound
- Reached through proper reasoning
- Free from reversible error
By reminding the prosecution of this distinction, Justice Chong was essentially saying: “Don’t ask me to re-weigh the evidence. Show me why the district judge’s findings cannot stand.”
Strategic Implications:
For the prosecution, this was problematic. They had built their case on multiple pieces of corroborative evidence, but the judge was signaling he wouldn’t simply re-assess witness credibility or re-evaluate competing accounts.
For the defence, this was encouraging. If Justice Chong would not make fresh findings, he would have to identify specific errors in the trial judge’s reasoning – and the defence was arguing precisely that such errors existed.
15:40 – The Inaction Argument Dismantled
Justice Chong’s Decisive Intervention:
When the prosecution emphasized Singh’s failure to clarify matters on October 4 when Khan doubled down on her lie, Justice Chong directly challenged this reasoning:
“It is not realistic to expect him to immediately react to say what she said was a lie. This can cut both ways, as the events subsequently demonstrate.”
Unpacking the Judge’s Logic:
This statement contained several layers of legal reasoning:
1. The Realism Standard: Courts assess evidence against what is realistically expected of people in actual situations, not idealized scenarios. Expecting Singh to immediately publicly contradict Khan in Parliament wasn’t realistic given:
- Political considerations
- Party cohesion concerns
- The need to understand context
- Desire to avoid public spectacle
2. “This Can Cut Both Ways”: This phrase was crucial. The prosecution argued: “Singh didn’t react, therefore he must have told Khan to lie.”
Justice Chong countered: The same inaction could mean:
- Singh was shocked by Khan’s choice
- He was considering how to respond
- He was consulting with party leadership
- He was weighing political and ethical considerations
- He was simply caught off-guard
3. The Impeachability Question: Justice Chong asked whether the trial judge’s finding on this point was “impeachable” – legal terminology for whether it could be overturned on appeal.
DAG Goh conceded: It was not impeachable.
This concession was significant. The prosecution effectively admitted that the trial judge’s reliance on Singh’s inaction as evidence of guilt might not withstand appellate scrutiny.
15:43 – The Disciplinary Panel Debate
Prosecution’s Argument: DAG Goh suggested that omissions in the WP’s disciplinary panel report implied “something to hide” – that the party was deliberately suppressing information that would corroborate Khan’s account and undermine Singh’s.
Justice Chong’s Response: “They are a political party, so reputation is important.”
The Judge’s Reasoning:
Justice Chong was acknowledging political reality: political parties naturally protect their reputation. Omissions in internal reports don’t necessarily indicate truth suppression – they might simply reflect:
- Strategic communication choices
- Concern for party image
- Selective disclosure practices
- Legal advice about what to include
The judge added: “Omission of information does not necessarily mean the truth is being suppressed.”
DAG Goh’s Retreat:
Faced with judicial skepticism, the Deputy Attorney-General backed down: “There is no need to rely on the disciplinary panel report and there is other evidence.”
This retreat was tactically sensible but strategically revealing. If even the prosecution didn’t want to defend this evidence vigorously, how strong was their overall case?
Late Afternoon: The Closing Arguments
15:56 – Prosecution’s Brief Closing:
After the break, DAG Goh delivered surprisingly brief closing remarks. After some clarifications, he stated simply:
“We respectfully pray that the court dismisses this case in its entirety.”
The brevity was notable. After hours of argument and judicial challenge, the prosecution’s closing was perfunctory. This could indicate:
- Confidence in the strength of their evidence
- Recognition that further argument would be futile
- Acceptance that Justice Chong had made up his mind
- Strategic choice to avoid overreaching
16:17 – Defence’s Five-Point Closing:
Andre Jumabhoy structured his final argument around five key points:
Point 1: Limited Corroboration Value Jumabhoy attacked the credibility and relevance of Ms. Loh and Mr. Nathan’s testimony. Corroborating witnesses only matter if their testimony actually corroborates – if they’re recounting secondhand information or their accounts are ambiguous, their value diminishes significantly.
Point 2: The “Wanted to Convey” Language (Charge 2) This became the defence’s strongest argument. The charge specifically stated Singh “wanted to convey” a message to Khan. Jumabhoy emphasized:
- This language addresses Singh’s intention
- Intention exists in the mind, regardless of outcome
- Even if Khan didn’t receive or understand the message, that doesn’t mean Singh didn’t intend to convey it
- Failing to successfully communicate ≠ lying about one’s intention
Point 3: Consistency of Singh’s Position Throughout all proceedings, Singh maintained he told Khan she would need to clarify her lie. This consistency supports his credibility.
Point 4: Alternative Explanations For disputed phrases like “I won’t judge you,” multiple plausible interpretations exist. When ambiguity favors the accused, criminal law principles require courts to resolve doubt in favor of the defendant.
Point 5: The Trial Judge’s Errors Circling back to the opening argument, Jumabhoy reiterated that crucial evidence was ignored or misweighed, requiring appellate intervention.
16:18 – Judgment Reserved
Justice Chong thanked both counsel and announced:
“The court will reserve its judgment. Parties will be informed when the judgment is ready.”
What “Reserved Judgment” Means:
Unlike summary decisions delivered immediately, reserved judgments allow the judge to:
- Review detailed legal submissions
- Research relevant case law
- Consider complex evidentiary issues
- Draft comprehensive written reasons
- Ensure careful analysis of all arguments
Reserved judgments are common in significant appeals where the stakes are high and the legal issues complex.
The Handshake:
Before departing, prosecution and defence teams shook hands – a gesture of professional respect regardless of the adversarial nature of proceedings.
Part V: Legal Analysis and Implications
The Credibility Assessment Problem
At the heart of this case lies a fundamental challenge: assessing credibility when witnesses provide contradictory accounts of private conversations.
The Classic “He Said, She Said” Dilemma:
When Khan says Singh told her to take the lie “to the grave,” and Singh says he told her to eventually come clean, how does a court determine truth?
Traditional factors include:
- Internal consistency: Does each account remain coherent throughout?
- Corroboration: What other evidence supports each version?
- Motive: Who has reason to lie?
- Demeanor: How did witnesses present in court?
- Contemporaneous documentation: What was recorded at the time?
The Appellate Challenge:
Trial judges see witnesses testify. They observe demeanor, evasiveness, confidence, consistency under cross-examination. Appellate judges only read transcripts. This creates a significant hurdle for overturning credibility findings – appellate courts generally defer to trial judges on credibility unless there’s clear error.
However, Justice Chong’s interventions suggest he may find the trial judge relied too heavily on contested inferences (like Singh’s inaction) rather than direct credibility assessments.
The “Wanted to Convey” Language: A Potential Path to Acquittal
The defence’s strongest argument may be their challenge to Charge 2 based on the specific wording: Singh “wanted to convey” a message.
The Legal Distinction:
Consider these scenarios:
Scenario A: Singh told the COP: “I conveyed to Khan that she must come clean.”
- If Khan never received this message, Singh’s statement would be false
- Clear case of lying about what happened
Scenario B: Singh told the COP: “I wanted to convey to Khan that she must come clean.”
- This describes Singh’s intention, not the outcome
- Even if Khan didn’t receive the message, Singh’s statement about his intention could be true
- Much harder to prove this is false – it requires proving Singh’s state of mind
The Prosecution’s Burden:
To convict on Charge 2 as worded, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Singh:
- Did NOT intend to convey that Khan should come clean, AND
- Knowingly lied about his intention when testifying to the COP
This is considerably harder than proving Khan didn’t receive the message or didn’t understand it. The defence only needs to establish reasonable doubt about Singh’s intention.
The Inaction Evidence: Cutting Both Ways
Justice Chong’s observation that Singh’s inaction “can cut both ways” identifies a critical weakness in the prosecution’s case.
The Prosecution’s Logic:
- If Singh had genuinely wanted Khan to come clean, he would have reacted when she doubled down
- His silence proves complicity
- Therefore, his testimony about wanting to convey the “come clean” message was false
The Defence’s Counter-Logic:
- Singh’s silence could reflect shock, uncertainty, or strategic calculation
- Immediate public contradiction would create a spectacle
- He may have been processing what happened
- Subsequent actions (speaking to Loh and Nathan on October 12) show he was addressing the situation
- Silence ≠ approval
The Judge’s Concern:
By noting this evidence “can cut both ways,” Justice Chong was signaling that the trial judge may have drawn too strong an inference from ambiguous evidence. In criminal law, when evidence is genuinely ambiguous, it shouldn’t form the basis for conviction.
The Standard of Proof Issue
Criminal convictions require proof beyond reasonable doubt – one of the highest standards in law. This means:
- The prosecution’s case must be compelling, not merely probable
- Any reasonable alternative explanation creates doubt
- Doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused
- Appellate courts must ensure this standard was truly met
Justice Chong’s skeptical questioning suggests he may be concerned whether the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard was satisfied, particularly when:
- Evidence is circumstantial (Singh’s inaction)
- Interpretation is contested (the “I won’t judge you” phrase)
- Corroboration is indirect (witness accounts of conversations about conversations)
- Alternative explanations exist (multiple possible meanings)
The Political Context Consideration
Justice Chong’s acknowledgment that “they are a political party, so reputation is important” reveals judicial awareness of the unique context of this case.
Why Political Context Matters:
Political parties operate differently from other organizations:
- Public perception directly affects electoral viability
- Internal discipline involves public relations considerations
- Communications are often strategic rather than fully transparent
- Leaders must balance truth-telling with party interests
The Legal Question:
While political context doesn’t excuse lying under oath, it does inform how courts assess evidence. The trial judge may have applied standards appropriate for ordinary cases without fully accounting for how political actors behave in crisis situations.
Corroboration Quality vs. Quantity
The prosecution presented multiple corroborating witnesses, but Justice Chong’s interventions suggest quantity doesn’t substitute for quality.
Ms. Loh and Mr. Nathan: These witnesses testified about what Singh told them on October 12 – nine days after the disputed October 3 conversation. Issues include:
- They’re reporting secondhand accounts
- Time delay allows memory degradation
- Their testimony reflects their interpretation of what Singh said
- They weren’t present for the original conversations
The Disciplinary Panel Report: Justice Chong effectively dismissed this evidence’s relevance, recognizing that political party internal processes have limited evidentiary value.
Low Thia Khiang: Described as providing “unchallenged evidence,” but we don’t know what he actually testified. The defence not challenging doesn’t necessarily mean the evidence is strong – it might have been tangential or not worth contesting.
Part VI: Potential Outcomes and Implications
Scenario 1: Appeal Dismissed (Original Conviction Upheld)
Probability Assessment: Moderate to Low (based on judicial interventions)
Rationale: If Justice Chong dismisses the appeal, he would need to find:
- The trial judge’s credibility assessments were reasonable
- The corroborative evidence sufficiently supported Khan’s account
- Singh’s alternative explanations don’t create reasonable doubt
- No reversible errors occurred in the trial
Implications:
- Singh’s political career would face severe challenges
- Workers’ Party reputation significantly damaged
- Precedent established for high standards in parliamentary testimony
- Future COPs would have strong reference case for perjury prosecutions
Scenario 2: Full Acquittal (Both Charges Overturned)
Probability Assessment: Low to Moderate (possible but would require strong findings)
Rationale: For full acquittal, Justice Chong would need to find:
- Trial judge made fundamental errors in evidence assessment
- Reasonable doubt exists for both charges
- The “wanted to convey” language creates insurmountable burden for Charge 2
- Singh’s inaction doesn’t support conviction on Charge 1
Implications:
- Political vindication for Singh and Workers’ Party
- Questions raised about the original investigation and prosecution
- Potential calls for review of COP processes
- Significant political realignment possible in Singapore
Scenario 3: Partial Success (One Charge Overturned)
Probability Assessment: Moderate to High (possibly most likely outcome)
Most Likely Version: Charge 2 overturned based on “wanted to convey” language; Charge 1 upheld
Rationale:
- The linguistic argument about “wanted to convey” is particularly strong
- Charge 1 involves more direct conflict between accounts
- Allows judge to find middle ground
- Acknowledges both errors and legitimate conviction
Implications:
- Split decision creates complicated political narrative
- Reduced sentence but still some accountability
- Less precedential value than full acquittal or dismissal
- Both sides can claim partial victory
Scenario 4: Remittal for Retrial
Probability Assessment: Very Low (judge’s comments suggest he’ll decide the appeal)
Rationale: Retrials are ordered when:
- Procedural errors tainted the trial
- New evidence emerged
- Original proceeding was fundamentally unfair
Justice Chong’s comments suggest he’s comfortable deciding the appeal on the existing record rather than sending it back.
Part VII: Broader Implications
For Parliamentary Accountability
This case tests how Singapore’s legal system enforces truthfulness in parliamentary proceedings:
If Conviction Stands:
- Strong deterrent against lying to COPs
- High stakes for political figures in testimony
- Enhanced authority of parliamentary inquiry processes
- Clear message about consequences of dishonesty
If Conviction Overturned:
- Questions about COP investigative methods
- Challenges in prosecuting “he said, she said” cases
- Possible chilling effect on aggressive questioning
- Need for clearer standards on what constitutes prosecutable perjury
For Political Opposition
As Leader of the Opposition, Singh’s case carries unique weight:
The Power Dynamic: Opposition leaders face inherent challenges:
- Greater scrutiny than ruling party members
- Less institutional support
- Higher political stakes for errors
- Public perception of victimization vs. accountability
The Workers’ Party: Singapore’s main opposition party faces critical crossroads:
- Leadership succession questions
- Public confidence issues
- Internal discipline challenges
- Electoral implications for future elections
For Legal Standards in Political Cases
Justice Chong’s handling of the appeal reveals important principles:
Judicial Independence: The judge’s willingness to challenge prosecution arguments demonstrates:
- Courts will scrutinize political cases carefully
- Political prominence doesn’t guarantee conviction
- Legal standards apply equally regardless of office
- Judicial skepticism protects against overreach
Evidence Standards: The case reinforces that:
- Circumstantial evidence has limits
- Inferences must be reasonable, not speculative
- Corroboration requires quality, not just quantity
- Ambiguity favors the accused
Part VIII: The Human Element
Pritam Singh’s Demeanor
Singh’s post-hearing behavior reveals his approach:
Declining Media Questions: His statement – “Let’s allow the court to review the submissions” – shows:
- Respect for judicial process
- Discipline in not prejudicing the outcome
- Strategic communication management
- Confidence in legal arguments or resignation to fate
Leaving Alone: Unlike typical political figures who surround themselves with supporters, Singh departed solo. This could reflect:
- Personal preference for dignity
- Party strategy to avoid spectacle
- Emotional toll of proceedings
- Calculated image management
The Lawyers’ Performance
Andre Jumabhoy (Defence): The senior counsel’s strategy reveals sophistication:
- Identified specific trial judge errors
- Focused on strongest arguments (the “wanted to convey” language)
- Effectively engaged with judicial skepticism
- Maintained professional composure under pressure
DAG Goh Yihan (Prosecution): The prosecution’s approach showed:
- Comprehensive evidence presentation
- Flexibility in retreating from weak arguments
- Professional response to judicial challenges
- Confidence in overall case strength despite setbacks
Justice Steven Chong’s Judicial Philosophy
The judge’s interventions reveal his approach:
Active Engagement: Rather than passively hearing arguments, Justice Chong:
- Tested weak points in real-time
- Challenged unsupported assertions
- Clarified his role as appellate judge
- Forced both sides to address difficulties
Pragmatic Realism: His comments about political parties and realistic expectations show:
- Understanding of real-world context
- Rejection of idealized standards
- Appreciation for human complexity
- Balanced approach to technical legal issues
Judicial Restraint: By emphasizing he’s “not a trial judge,” Justice Chong signaled:
- Respect for trial court’s fact-finding role
- Appropriate appellate deference
- Focus on legal errors rather than re-weighing evidence
- Measured approach to overturning convictions
Part IX: What the Waiting Means
The Timeline for Judgment
Reserved judgments typically take weeks to months, depending on:
- Complexity of legal issues
- Volume of submissions
- Judge’s other case load
- Need for research and drafting
- Consultation with judicial colleagues (if any)
Possible Timeframes:
- Quick (2-4 weeks): If issues are straightforward
- Standard (1-3 months): For complex appeals
- Extended (3-6 months): If particularly difficult legal questions arise
What the Parties Do Now
For Singh and the Defence:
- Review hearing transcript
- Assess judicial reactions
- Prepare for either outcome
- Manage public communications
- Consider further legal options if appeal fails
For the Prosecution:
- Evaluate strength of arguments presented
- Review judge’s concerns
- Prepare response to potential adverse decision
- Consider implications for similar cases
- Brief relevant government stakeholders
For the Workers’ Party:
- Scenario planning for both outcomes
- Managing internal party dynamics
- Public relations strategy development
- Leadership succession contingencies
- Electoral impact assessment
Reading the Tea Leaves
While predicting judicial outcomes is inherently uncertain, certain indicators from the hearing provide clues:
Factors Favoring Singh:
- Justice Chong’s skepticism about inaction evidence
- Prosecution’s concession on impeachability
- Judge’s rejection of disciplinary panel evidence
- Emphasis on the “wanted to convey” language
- Recognition of political context
Factors Favoring Prosecution:
- Multiple corroborating witnesses
- Khan’s consistent account
- Email and other documentary evidence
- Low Thia Khiang’s unchallenged testimony
- Trial judge saw witnesses testify directly
The Uncertain Middle: Most appeals fall somewhere between clear error and unassailable conviction. Justice Chong may find some arguments persuasive while rejecting others, leading to the partial success scenario.
Conclusion: A Case at the Intersection of Law and Politics
The Pritam Singh appeal represents more than one politician’s legal battle. It embodies fundamental tensions in Singapore’s political and legal systems:
Legal Tensions:
- How do courts assess credibility in “he said, she said” cases?
- What standard of proof truly means “beyond reasonable doubt”?
- How should appellate courts review trial court findings?
- When does circumstantial evidence suffice for criminal conviction?
Political Tensions:
- How much scrutiny should opposition leaders face?
- What accountability mechanisms govern parliamentary conduct?
- How do political parties balance transparency with reputation?
- What constitutes fair treatment of political figures in legal proceedings?
Institutional Tensions:
- Judicial independence vs. political implications
- Parliamentary privilege vs. legal accountability
- Party loyalty vs. individual responsibility
- Public interest vs. individual rights
Justice Chong’s eventual decision will address not just Pritam Singh’s guilt or innocence, but broader questions about how Singapore’s legal system handles politically sensitive cases involving parliamentary accountability.
The reserved judgment ensures careful consideration of these complex issues. When the decision arrives, it will resonate far beyond the individuals involved, shaping standards for political conduct, parliamentary oversight, and judicial review for years to come.
Until then, Pritam Singh, the Workers’ Party, the prosecution, and Singapore’s political observers must wait – knowing that the outcome will significantly impact the nation’s political and legal landscape, regardless of which way Justice Chong rules.
The Stakes: More Than One Man’s Reputation
When Workers’ Party (WP) Secretary-General Pritam Singh walked into the Supreme Court on November 4, 2025, he carried with him not just his own political future, but the fragile trust Singapore’s opposition has spent decades building. His appeal against February’s conviction for lying to Parliament represents one of the most consequential legal battles in Singapore’s modern political history—a case where the interpretation of two sentences could determine whether the nation’s most successful opposition leader remains in politics or exits in disgrace.
The courtroom drama centers on a deceptively simple question: What did Singh really mean when he spoke to his former party colleague, Raeesah Khan? But beneath this lies a more profound inquiry into leadership, accountability, and the nature of truth in Singapore’s carefully calibrated political ecosystem.
The Two Sentences That Changed Everything
“Take it to the grave”
The first disputed statement cuts to the heart of the prosecution’s case. Did Singh tell Khan to “take it to the grave”—essentially instructing her to maintain her lie about accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station? Or is this phrase, as Singh maintains, something he never uttered?
This isn’t mere semantics. If Singh said these words, they would constitute direct instruction to perpetuate a falsehood in Parliament—one of the gravest political sins in Singapore’s governance framework. The phrase itself carries cinematic weight, the kind of dramatic language that suggests deliberate conspiracy rather than confused communication.
Singh’s defense team, led by Andre Jumabhoy, argues that the previous judge “ignored crucial pieces of evidence” that would exonerate their client on this point. The implication is clear: without solid evidence that Singh uttered these specific words, the entire prosecution case becomes significantly weaker. It transforms from a story of deliberate cover-up to one of potential misunderstanding or, at worst, poor judgment.
The evidential battle here likely revolves around whose account is more credible—Khan’s testimony about what Singh told her, or Singh’s denial. This becomes particularly complex given that Singh’s lawyers attempted to paint Khan as a “habitual liar” during cross-examination. If Khan’s credibility is successfully undermined, the foundation of the prosecution’s case begins to crumble.
“I will not judge you”
The second statement presents an even more nuanced interpretive challenge. Both sides agree Singh said these words—but what did he mean?
The prosecution’s reading is damning: Singh was signaling to Khan that he wouldn’t judge her for continuing with the lie. In this interpretation, the statement represents tacit approval, a green light disguised as neutrality. It’s the kind of plausibly deniable language that leaders might use when they want to encourage behavior without explicit endorsement—maintaining just enough distance to claim innocence if things go wrong.
The defense offers a radically different interpretation: Singh meant he wouldn’t judge Khan if she took ownership and responsibility for her lie. In this reading, far from encouraging deception, Singh was actually opening the door for Khan to come clean, assuring her that he would support her if she chose the path of honesty.
This interpretive divide exemplifies how language can be weaponized in legal proceedings. The same four words, spoken in a private conversation, can be twisted to support diametrically opposed narratives. Context becomes everything—Singh’s tone, the surrounding conversation, his previous and subsequent actions, and the relationship dynamics between a party leader and a subordinate MP.
The Legal Chess Game
Justice Steven Chong now faces the unenviable task of determining which interpretation aligns with reality. Unlike the original trial judge, he must evaluate whether there was sufficient evidence to convict “beyond reasonable doubt”—the highest standard in criminal law.
The defense strategy appears to hinge on creating reasonable doubt about both statements. They don’t necessarily need to prove Singh’s innocence definitively; they merely need to demonstrate that the prosecution’s interpretation isn’t the only plausible one, or that crucial evidence was overlooked.
This is where the “ignored evidence” argument becomes critical. What evidence did the original judge fail to properly consider? Could there be contemporaneous records, witness testimonies, or documentary evidence that contradicts the prosecution’s timeline or interpretation? The defense’s confidence in highlighting this suggests they believe they have substantive grounds for overturning the conviction.
The prosecution, led by Deputy Attorney-General Goh Yihan, must defend not only their original case but also the thoroughness of the previous judicial analysis. They need to show that even considering all evidence, the only reasonable conclusion is that Singh deliberately lied to the Committee of Privileges.
The Political Earthquake’s Aftershocks
A Leader Still Standing—For Now
The most remarkable aspect of this saga is that Singh not only survived politically but thrived. His Aljunied GRC team secured nearly 60% of votes in the May 2025 general election, a resounding endorsement that exceeded their previous performance. This creates a peculiar situation: a convicted politician who remains immensely popular with his constituents.
This popularity reveals something profound about Singapore’s evolving political culture. Traditionally, any whiff of impropriety would be fatal to a political career. The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) has built its dominance partly on an unblemished reputation for integrity. Yet here we have an opposition leader, convicted of lying to Parliament, who not only kept his seat but increased his majority.
Several factors explain this apparent paradox:
1. The “Persecution Narrative”: Many WP supporters view Singh’s prosecution as politically motivated—an attempt by the establishment to neutralize an increasingly effective opposition. Whether or not this perception is fair, it has rallied the party’s base and attracted sympathy votes.
2. Relative Severity: While lying to Parliament is serious, Singh’s actions (as characterized by the prosecution) involved trying to protect a subordinate, not personal corruption or abuse of power. Some voters may view this as misguided loyalty rather than venality.
3. Opposition Scarcity: Singapore’s opposition bench is thin. Voters in Aljunied may have calculated that losing Singh would be more damaging to democratic competition than keeping a flawed but experienced leader.
4. Trust in the Appeal Process: The decision to retain Singh may also reflect confidence that the appeal will succeed, with voters effectively saying “let’s wait for the final verdict.”
Parliamentary Privileges and Democratic Functioning
Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s decision to maintain Singh’s status as Leader of the Opposition, with its attendant privileges and resources, demonstrates pragmatic governance. Stripping these privileges would have been legally permissible but politically inflammatory, potentially appearing vindictive and undermining parliamentary democracy.
This decision ensures that the opposition can function effectively even as its leader fights legal battles—a necessary condition for healthy democratic competition. It also places the government on the moral high ground, appearing fair-minded rather than punitive.
However, this situation creates awkwardness. Singapore’s Parliament operates on conventions of honor and integrity. Having a Leader of the Opposition with a conviction for lying to Parliament—even while appealing—tests these conventions. If the conviction is ultimately upheld, it would set a troubling precedent about acceptable standards for parliamentary leaders.
Broader Implications for Singapore’s Democracy
The Precedent Problem
This case will establish important precedents regardless of outcome:
If the conviction is upheld: It sends a strong signal that parliamentary privilege is sacred and that lying to parliamentary committees carries serious consequences. It would reinforce Singapore’s zero-tolerance approach to political dishonesty. However, it would also raise questions about whether the standard is applied evenly across the political spectrum.
If Singh is acquitted: It would suggest that the original case was overreached, potentially emboldening other politicians to take more aggressive stances when questioned. It might also validate concerns about whether political prosecutions can be too aggressive. Most significantly, it would resurrect Singh’s political career completely, potentially making him stronger than before.
The Opposition’s Dilemma
The Workers’ Party finds itself in a bind. It has stood firmly behind Singh, as loyalty demands. But this loyalty is not without cost. The party’s brand has been tarnished by association with dishonesty—first Khan’s lie, then allegations against Singh.
For a party trying to position itself as a credible alternative government, ethical questions are existential threats. The WP has worked for decades to shed the image of opposition parties as mere protestors and establish themselves as competent potential governors. Scandals undermine this carefully constructed image.
If Singh loses his appeal, the WP faces a devastating choice: stand by their leader and risk further reputational damage, or force him out and appear disloyal while losing their most electorally successful politician. If he wins, the vindication could actually strengthen the party’s narrative of fighting against establishment persecution.
Trust in Institutions
This case also tests public trust in Singapore’s judicial and political institutions. The prosecution has faced scrutiny over whether it was politically motivated. The courts must demonstrate that they can adjudicate fairly in highly politicized cases. Parliament must show that its privileges and procedures serve democracy rather than partisan interests.
Singapore’s reputation for clean, effective governance depends on maintaining high standards while also ensuring fairness and proportionality. This case walks a tightrope between these imperatives.
The Human Element
Lost sometimes in the legal and political analysis is the human story. Singh, who has served as an MP for 14 years, has built his career on being accessible and principled. His supporters describe him as someone who genuinely cares about constituents and fights for the underdog.
The prosecution’s case paints him as someone who prioritized political expediency over truth—protecting Khan and his party’s reputation rather than immediately correcting the parliamentary record. Even if one believes Singh made serious errors, there’s a difference between malicious corruption and misguided loyalty to a struggling younger colleague.
Khan herself has disappeared from public life after her resignation, her promising political career destroyed by her original lie. Singh’s legal team’s strategy of attacking her credibility, while legally sound, adds another layer of tragedy to her story.
What Happens Next?
Justice Chong will deliberate before delivering his judgment. Unlike the original trial, this is an appeal based on points of law and evidentiary interpretation rather than a retrial of facts. His decision will likely take weeks or months.
If acquitted: Singh would likely see a surge in political capital. The narrative of surviving politically-motivated prosecution would be powerful. He could position himself as tested and vindicated, potentially making him an even more formidable opposition leader going into future elections.
If conviction upheld: Singh would need to decide whether to pursue further appeals or accept his fate. His political career wouldn’t necessarily end immediately—he can technically continue as an MP—but his moral authority would be severely compromised. The WP would face an agonizing decision about his leadership.
Partial outcomes: The court could also uphold one charge but acquit on another, or reduce the sentence. Such nuanced outcomes would leave everyone in ambiguous territory.
The Larger Question: What Kind of Politics Does Singapore Want?
Ultimately, this case asks Singaporeans to reflect on what standards they expect from their political leaders and how those standards should be enforced.
Singapore has long prided itself on having unusually high standards for political conduct—a source of national pride that distinguishes it from more corrupt neighbors. The Pritam Singh case tests whether these standards apply equally to all parties and whether they leave room for human error versus deliberate wrongdoing.
The case also highlights tensions inherent in Singapore’s political system: a dominant party that has governed for six decades, a opposition still finding its footing, and a population increasingly demanding both accountability from the government and viability from the opposition.
As Justice Chong deliberates, he holds in his hands not just one man’s fate, but a piece of Singapore’s democratic future. His interpretation of two contested sentences will ripple through the nation’s politics for years to come, influencing how future politicians behave, how voters judge their leaders, and how Singapore balances its commitment to integrity with its need for robust democratic competition.
The words “take it to the grave” and “I will not judge you” have become more than phrases in a private conversation—they are now central texts in an ongoing debate about truth, power, and accountability in Singapore’s maturing democracy.
As this appeal continues, one thing is certain: regardless of the legal outcome, the political landscape has already been altered. The only question is whether the change will be temporary turbulence or a fundamental reshaping of Singapore’s opposition politics.
The Gravity of Words
Part One: The Meeting
The rain drummed against the windows of the hawker center, creating a curtain of sound that made private conversation possible even in this most public of spaces. Pritam stirred his kopi, watching the milk swirl into darkness, thinking about how quickly clarity could dissolve into murkiness.
Across from him, Raeesah looked smaller than usual, hunched over her untouched teh tarik. Her phone lay face-down on the scratched melamine table between them, as if she couldn’t bear to see the messages still flooding in.
“I don’t know what to do,” she said, her voice barely audible above the rain and the clatter of dishes. “It’s gotten so big. The story—it’s everywhere now.”
Pritam had known this conversation was coming since the moment her words in Parliament had gone viral. The story about accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station, the dismissive treatment by officers—it had resonated, sparked outrage, been shared thousands of times. It had also, he now knew, never happened.
“Tell me again,” he said quietly. “From the beginning.”
She did. The embellishment that had grown from a story she’d heard second-hand. The heat of the parliamentary moment. The way the lie had felt necessary to make her point land with impact. And then, the terrible realization afterward that she’d crossed a line she couldn’t uncross.
“I wanted to help,” she whispered. “The issue is real, even if my story wasn’t. Women do face these problems. I just… I thought one story wouldn’t matter if it helped change things.”
Pritam closed his eyes briefly. He’d been in politics long enough to understand the temptation she’d described—the desire to make the abstract concrete, to give bureaucratic failures a human face. But he also understood something else: that in Singapore’s political ecosystem, such fabrications weren’t just wrong, they were existential threats. The opposition lived or died by its credibility.
“What do you want me to tell you?” he asked.
“Tell me what to do.”
“I can’t tell you what to do, Raeesah. This is your decision.”
Her eyes filled with tears. “Everyone’s going to hate me.”
“Maybe,” he said. “But they’ll hate you more if the truth comes out another way. And it will come out. It always does.”
She nodded, not meeting his eyes. “If I come clean now… the party will suffer. You’ll suffer. After everything you’ve built in Aljunied—”
“Let me worry about the party,” he interrupted. “You worry about doing the right thing.”
“Which is what? Exactly?”
He leaned back, the plastic chair creaking under him. Through the rain-streaked window, he could see the HDB blocks rising into the grey sky, thousands of homes stacked upon each other, millions of lives intersecting in this small island nation where everyone knew everyone, where secrets had a half-life measured in hours.
“I will not judge you,” he said finally. “Whatever you decide to do. If you want to take responsibility, own up to what happened—I’ll support you through that. If you need time to think, take it. But this is your truth to tell or not tell. Not mine.”
“But you’re my leader—”
“And as your leader, I’m telling you that I can’t make this choice for you. Nobody can.”
She wiped her eyes with the back of her hand, smearing her mascara. “What would you do?”
“That’s not a fair question.”
“Please.”
He was quiet for a long moment, watching a family at the next table—parents and two children, laughing at something on someone’s phone, completely absorbed in their small world of joy. When had he last laughed like that?
“I would tell the truth,” he said. “Because I’ve learned that lies have weight. They seem light when you first pick them up, but they grow heavier every day you carry them. Eventually, they become so heavy they crush everything around them.”
She nodded slowly. Then: “Can I think about it? Just… can I have some time?”
“Of course.” He stood, leaving money for both their drinks. “Raeesah—whatever happens, you’re not alone in this. The party will support you. I’ll support you. But you have to be the one to decide.”
As he walked away, umbrella blooming open against the rain, he didn’t know that these words—meant as comfort, as leadership, as compassion—would be dissected, analyzed, weaponized. He didn’t know that “I will not judge you” would become four of the most contested words in Singapore’s recent political history.
He didn’t know that three months later, when Raeesah finally told her truth to Parliament, when the storm really broke, someone would claim he had said something else entirely: “Take it to the grave.”
He didn’t know because he hadn’t said it. But in the strange alchemy of memory and motivation, of pressure and perception, those words would be attributed to him anyway.
Part Two: The Committee
December 2021. The Committee of Privileges hearing room felt deliberately austere, designed to intimidate. Pritam sat in the witness chair, aware of every camera angle, every recorder, every note being taken.
“Mr. Singh,” the chairperson said, “what exactly did you tell Ms. Khan when she confessed her lie to you?”
He’d prepared for this. He’d known it was coming. But the gap between preparation and performance was a chasm.
“I told her that she needed to take responsibility for what she’d said,” he replied carefully. “That this was her decision to make about how to move forward.”
“Did you tell her to maintain the lie?”
“No.”
“Did you discourage her from coming clean?”
“No. I told her I would support her whatever she decided.”
“Support her in continuing to lie to Parliament?”
“Support her in taking responsibility—”
“Yes or no, Mr. Singh. Did you tell her you would not judge her if she continued with the falsehood?”
And here it was. The question that would define everything.
“I said I would not judge her,” he answered. “But I meant—”
“Yes or no suffices, Mr. Singh.”
“Context matters—”
“Did you or did you not say ‘I will not judge you’?”
“I did, but—”
“Thank you. And did you or did you not tell Ms. Khan to ‘take it to the grave’?”
“No. I never said that.”
“Ms. Khan testified that you did.”
“Then Ms. Khan is mistaken or lying.”
The words hung in the air, heavy with implication. He had just called his former colleague a liar under oath. There was no walking this back.
Part Three: The Verdict
February 2025. The trial had been exhausting—thirteen days of testimony, cross-examination, legal arguments. Pritam had watched his life dissected, his words analyzed, his character questioned.
The judge’s verdict was clinical in its precision: guilty on two counts of lying to the Committee of Privileges. The interpretation was stark—”I will not judge you” meant he had given permission for the lie to continue. His denial of “take it to the grave” was not believed.
Standing outside the State Courts, facing cameras and questions, Pritam felt the weight of those words—the ones he’d said and the ones he hadn’t—pressing down on him like physical objects.
“I will appeal,” he said simply.
His phone buzzed constantly. Messages of support from constituents. Strategy discussions from party leaders. Media requests. And one message that stood out, from an unknown number:
“I’m sorry. I was scared. I didn’t mean for it to go this far. —R”
He deleted it without responding.
Part Four: The Campaign
May 2025. Walking through the Aljunied markets during the campaign, Pritam was surprised by the warmth of the reception. He’d expected anger, disappointment, maybe pity. Instead, he found something more complex: solidarity mixed with skepticism, support tinged with doubt, loyalty qualified by concern.
“Mr. Singh! Mr. Singh!” An elderly woman grabbed his arm. “You’re a good man. They’re trying to bring you down because you’re strong.”
A younger voter was more circumspect: “I still believe in you, but I need to know—what really happened?”
A hawker making char kway teow looked up from his wok: “Politics is dirty business lah. PAP or WP, all also the same. But at least you fight for us.”
Standing on stage at a rally, looking out at thousands of faces, Pritam felt the paradox of his position. He was a convicted liar who people trusted. A disgraced politician with a sixty percent approval rating. A leader whose words had been twisted but whose actions—fourteen years of service, of advocacy, of showing up—spoke louder.
“I made mistakes,” he told the crowd. “I could have handled things better. But I never told anyone to lie. I never chose politics over truth. And I will continue to fight for you, to serve you, whether or not I wear this conviction like a scarlet letter.”
The cheers were deafening.
Part Five: The Appeal
November 2025. Back in the courtroom, this time the Supreme Court, Pritam watched his lawyer make the arguments he’d refined over months.
“Your Honor, this case hinges on the interpretation of ambiguous statements. ‘I will not judge you’—what does this phrase actually mean? The prosecution claims it’s permission to lie. But consider the context: a leader speaking to a distressed subordinate, encouraging her to take ownership of her actions. Isn’t it more plausible that he meant ‘I won’t judge you for coming clean’?”
Justice Chong listened impassively, occasionally making notes.
“And the phrase ‘take it to the grave’—this dramatic statement appears nowhere in Mr. Singh’s character or history. The only source is Ms. Khan, whose credibility is, to put it charitably, questionable. She lied to Parliament. She lied about the circumstances. Why would we believe her about this?”
During recess, Pritam stood in the hallway, watching lawyers and clerks hurry past, each absorbed in their own dramas. He thought about how we’re all unreliable narrators of our own lives, how memory bends under pressure, how truth becomes slippery when filtered through fear and ambition.
Had he been naive in his conversation with Raeesah? Absolutely. Had he been too indirect, too gentle, when clarity and firmness were needed? Probably. Had he failed as a leader? Maybe.
But had he told her to lie? Had he conspired to deceive Parliament?
No.
He held onto that certainty like a lifeline.
Part Six: The Weight
That evening, Pritam stood on the balcony of his flat, looking out over Aljunied. Lights in thousands of windows, each representing a life, a family, a story. These were the people who had trusted him with their votes even after his conviction. These were the people whose housing issues he’d helped with, whose complaints he’d brought to Parliament, whose children he’d watched grow up at Meet-the-People sessions.
His phone rang. His wife.
“How was it?” she asked.
“Hard to tell. Chong’s a poker face.”
“How are you?”
He considered the question. How was he? Exhausted. Vindicated and vilified in equal measure. Certain of his innocence yet aware of his failures. Hopeful yet prepared for disappointment.
“I’m alright,” he said.
“Liar,” she said gently, with love.
He laughed, the irony not lost on him. “Yeah. I’m a terrible liar. Which is why I’m in this mess.”
After he hung up, he thought about words again—how they could heal or wound, clarify or confuse, build or destroy. He thought about how “take it to the grave” and “I will not judge you” had become hieroglyphics in Singapore’s political archaeology, ancient texts subject to endless interpretation.
He thought about Raeesah, wherever she was now, living with her own words, her own choices.
Maxthon
In an age where the digital world is in constant flux and our interactions online are ever-evolving, the importance of prioritising individuals as they navigate the expansive internet cannot be overstated. The myriad of elements that shape our online experiences calls for a thoughtful approach to selecting web browsers—one that places a premium on security and user privacy. Amidst the multitude of browsers vying for users’ loyalty, Maxthon emerges as a standout choice, providing a trustworthy solution to these pressing concerns, all without any cost to the user.
Maxthon, with its advanced features, boasts a comprehensive suite of built-in tools designed to enhance your online privacy. Among these tools are a highly effective ad blocker and a range of anti-tracking mechanisms, each meticulously crafted to fortify your digital sanctuary. This browser has carved out a niche for itself, particularly with its seamless compatibility with Windows 11, further solidifying its reputation in an increasingly competitive market.
In a crowded landscape of web browsers, Maxthon has forged a distinct identity through its unwavering dedication to offering a secure and private browsing experience. Fully aware of the myriad threats lurking in the vast expanse of cyberspace, Maxthon works tirelessly to safeguard your personal information. Utilizing state-of-the-art encryption technology, it ensures that your sensitive data remains protected and confidential throughout your online adventures.
What truly sets Maxthon apart is its commitment to enhancing user privacy during every moment spent online. Each feature of this browser has been meticulously designed with the user’s privacy in mind. Its powerful ad-blocking capabilities work diligently to eliminate unwanted advertisements, while its comprehensive anti-tracking measures effectively reduce the presence of invasive scripts that could disrupt your browsing enjoyment. As a result, users can traverse the web with newfound confidence and safety.
Moreover, Maxthon’s incognito mode provides an extra layer of security, granting users enhanced anonymity while engaging in their online pursuits. This specialised mode not only conceals your browsing habits but also ensures that your digital footprint remains minimal, allowing for an unobtrusive and liberating internet experience. With Maxthon as your ally in the digital realm, you can explore the vastness of the internet with peace of mind, knowing that your privacy is being prioritised every step of the way.